get married or move out of your home

[Busyman™]

Odd how the idea of what constitutes a "free country" escapes people.

Say or think what you want about the living arrangements; they are in violation of an ordinance, which must be considered the will of the people absent a review overturning it.

One would assume the municipality has done it's due diligence and is not harboring other such trespassers before forcing the issue with these people.

I'd guess there are others, under the radar, so to speak.

Still, I must fall on the side of state/local rights to define their milieu.

Hi, 'Rose.

Will of the people? What does a man and woman living together have to do with anyone else?

I'd love to see a town pass an ordinance forbiding folks from living together unless they are unrelated by blood or marriage.

It would be the will of the people ya see.

It's funny to hear folks spout off that it was their fault for not checking into the ordinance beforehand. Who the fuck woulda thunk o this shit?

I wouldn't be surprised if this violates some federal law which would mean this "ordinance" means shit.

This is like the bullshit law where it says a person wouldn't be able to ass-fuck in privacy of their own home.

Some shit boils down to a wee bit of fair logic.

I wonder does this "ordinance" account for adoption. Could I adopt 4 kids, buy the house, and the county say fuck-off?

[Everose]

Busy, is it logical that you check applicable gun laws in a City that you are considering carrying them in? Or do you 'think' to do that?

[vidcc]

My opinion is that government AT ANY LEVEL has no place making rules like this to start with. Structural building codes are fine, codes regarding the outer appearance of a residence are fine. Codes that prohibit nuisance that affects others, eg. noise, fumes, litter or smoke are fine.
If a private landlord chooses not to rent to unmarried couples that's his choice. That may seem repugnant but it's his property and he can rent it as he pleases.
Interference in personal relationships and life choices in the privately owned home is off limits.

Edit:Actually if you look at the ordinance, you could be living with someone else, or be unmarried with one child. But have two children and unmarried, NOPE can't live there.

They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

disclaimer.

The poster has not included every possibility such as government agencies entering the private home in cases of neglect or abuse of children or during a disturbance or with warrant duely issued for law enforcement. The ommision of such in no way indicates that the poster has ignored such scenarios

[Busyman™]

Busy, is it logical that you check applicable gun laws in a City that you are considering carrying them in? Or do you 'think' to do that?

Use the noggin, Evey. It's friggin' guns you are talking about not living in a domicile which is very basic.

It's very easy to say that they should have thought about checking the ordinances now. The fact is it perfectly reasonable to assume that one could move into a 5-bedroom house with 3 adopted kids yet in this town ya can't.

Furthermore, the intention of the "ordinance" has been stated but the townsfolk are going past it's intention.

[What'spunk.]

My opinion is that government AT ANY LEVEL has no place making rules like this to start with. Structural building codes are fine, codes regarding the outer appearance of a residence are fine. Codes that prohibit nuisance that affects others, eg. noise, fumes, litter or smoke are fine.
If a private landlord chooses not to rent to unmarried couples that's his choice. That may seem repugnant but it's his property and he can rent it as he pleases.
Interference in personal relationships and life choices in the privately owned home is off limits.

That all seems very sensible to me. Live and let live and if they aren't hurting anyone else, leave them alone.

It strikes me that this law is intended for some other scenario, however some jobsworth said "the law's the law and it's the same for everyone".

[lynx]

The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms

I bet boarding houses are ok when they are registered, ie when the council gets its cut.

I wonder what excuse the council would come up with if they applied to register as a boarding house.

[Everose]

Busy, to me, it is about covering your bases. A necessary thing to do these days. Lay off my noggin. I use it so constantly that sometimes it just needs a good rest.

Vid, I agree with you on these ordinances. From my experiences with the drafting and enforcing of them............a Council usually will not pass one unless they have a vocal percentage of the population pushing for it or it is a safety or sanitary issue. They are also always published, and usually available online for review. What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

It would be interesting to see the ordinance itself to try to ascertain what the intent was.

[Busyman™]

Busy, to me, it is about covering your bases. A necessary thing to do these days. Lay off my noggin. I use it so constantly that sometimes it just needs a good rest.

Vid, I agree with you on these ordinances. From my experiences with the drafting and enforcing of them............a Council usually will not pass one unless they have a vocal percentage of the population pushing for it or it is a safety or sanitary issue. They are also always published, and usually available online for review. What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

It would be interesting to see the ordinance itself to try to ascertain what the intent was.

From the article it says what the intent was although the ordinance is not shown.

As far as what you think one should check for when moving, I apologize.

Apparently it must be common knowledge that unmarried couples with more than 1 kid must check to see if they can live in a domcile in America that they paid for.

Knowing how it is on my little side of America in the DC area, it would have been the last thing on my radar. Actually for that matter, not on my radar.

I do forget that we do live in a country where my land can be taken if someone else can put something on it to raise it's property value so maybe the unmarried plus-1 kid rule should've bust me upside the head too.

What the fuck was I thinking?

I'm glad I plan on getting married before giving wifey the squirt that counts.

edit: I wonder was this ordinance passed via referendum or a 6 outta 10 council vote.

[Fromagepas]

What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

Are you suggesting that people are totally apathetic about how they are ruled, until the rules jump up and bite them on the arse? You may be onto something there, try getting the figures for the turnout at the last election in Black Jack, that may give you some sort of a clue about how much people care.

If you can also get a demographic on those who actually gave enough of a fuck to vote, you may have cracked it. You may even know who is making the rules and on behalf of whom they are making them.